NetGalley ARC | The Eight King Henrys of England

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐

So this review will actually be pretty brief because I will be honest that I did not finish the book.

Shocking, as it covers some of my most favorite time periods.

But a terrible slander occurred attempting to - either accidentally or on purpose - stain the reputation of my beloved Eleanor of Aquitaine. At best it was poor research; at worst it was lazy research. Neither of which I can abide.

I made it through the reign of Henry I, chugging along nicely. Then came the chapter I was most excited about, because Eleanor was sure to receive several mentions over the course of Henry II's reign.

Yet one of the very first appearances of Eleanor early on in Henry II's chapter mentions Eleanor on Crusade with her first husband, Louis VII. The author states, "Her alleged sexual relationship with her uncle, Raymond, Prince of Antioch, led to the end of her marriage."

Nope nope nope.

First, there's no actual evidence that she had an affair with Raymond. He was the only family she had left besides her sister, and they had not seen each other in several years. These rumors did not start until a couple decades later, likely because we do not know what actually happened that made Eleanor refuse to leave Antioch in the first place. Had the two really had an affair, it would have been an immediate scandal. They were far more closely related than Eleanor and Louis (third cousins, once removed). Some contemporary chroniclers were already hostile to Eleanor, even in her lifetime and more most certainly after her death. Despite my love for the Middle Ages, it - and the entirety of human history - reeks of misogyny, and almost all of the chroniclers were men. Women who did write mainly lived in convents and wrote of their religious experiences. Even Christine de Pizan came along a couple hundred years after Eleanor.

Secondly, even if she had had an affair with her uncle, that is not what ended her marriage to Louis VII. Eleanor did not want to leave Antioch. She wanted Louis to join forces with Raymond, but he refused. She was forced to go by Louis, with some accounts stating he forcibly put her on the boat himself. When they returned from Crusade, Eleanor wanted nothing to do with her husband. It certainly did not help that she learned her uncle had been captured and beheaded at the Battle of Inab. They were guests of Pope Eugenius III after a slog of a trip to get back home.There had already been talk of getting the marriage annulled prior to this, and it was brought up once again. The Pope refused the request and at one point threatened excommunication if they did not attempt to work things out. He insisted they sleep together while there and of course Eleanor ended up pregnant again. She gave birth to their second daughter in 1150, and two years later was finally able to shake herself free from the marriage.

If you do not write accurately about someone I know so much about, how am I to know if you are writing accurately about others I know less about? It is hard to trust someone's words when events are massively misconstrued and no context or detail is given.

So is this continuing in the vein of those chroniclers from hundreds of years ago, or just lack of interest in further research? Yes, the book is about the eight Henrys, but Eleanor of Aquitaine was no small player in history.

Either way, not interested in anything else this book has to say.

NetGalley ARC | The Tudors in Love: Passion and Politics in the Age of England's Most Famous Dynasty

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Review ⭐⭐

I am truly not sure why this one did not work for me, I have enjoyed so many other of Gristwood's books. It could be that I knew a lot of the info it contained, though I can appreciate the direct lens she looks at said info with. The author examines how the concept of courtly love impacted the Tudor dynasty both at home and abroad.

The legend of King Arthur, his queen, and his knights, was enthralling to many of England's rulers, but no one believed he embodied those chivalric qualities the way Henry VIII believed he did. The Tudors were excellent at claiming lineage from King Arthur himself, to further validate their very tenuous claim to the throne. But there was no propoganda machine like the Tudor Propaganda Machine, and so court life was infused with the games of courtly love.

Gristwood does an incredibly thorough job with her research and is clear in laying out how those legends shaped Henry's life and marriages.

To do this, Gristwood begins with the legends themselves, as well as looking at how previous monarchs also looked to the legends. This includes my girl Eleanor of Aquitaine, who I always like to read about. Gristwood then moves on to the Houses who combined under the rule of the first Tudor king, the Yorks and Lancasters.

Gristwood does an excellent job exploring the relationships of the Tudor monarchs and their courtiers, who were also invested in the game of courtly love. However, some background knowledge is helpful, as there are a lot of names thrown around.

Again, I am not sure why this one didn't work for me as well as the author's previous books, She's written four others and I enjoyed them all. I love non-fiction and read it almost exclusively, so that is not the issue.

I would still recommend this one to others who enjoy this period, as the issue in the case seems to be me.

Book Review | Heroines of the Medieval World

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Another essential read from the author on one of the most extraordinary periods in history, showcasing  a wide variety of women who were just as extraodinary. Connolly introduces many women both famous and obscure and shares their stories. Despite the fact that it was supposedly men who ruled the world, these women prove time and again that they were not merely subservient to the men in their lives. The choices these women make not only alter their own paths, but the wider world around them, some even changing so far as to change the course of history.

Connolly has organized the women by theme and I really liked this approach. I like that this lead to some overlap sometimes, because it shows how so many were connected. Themes include Heroines in Religion, the Medieval Mistress, Scandalous Heroines, Women Who Ruled, Captove Heroines, and the Survivors. There are others as well that I will leave you discover, just as I will let you discover these heroines and who Connolly chose to include. There were many women I was unfamiliar with, or only knew of in passing where they fit into someone else's larger story. As a result there are many more women I will seek out further books about.

Connolly is incredibly knowledgeable of the women and their world. This is a well-researched text with notes and references to back up her work. Despite not being organized by woman, there is still so much depth here that we get to know the women very well. She brings the women to life and does so in an informative but still accessible way.

I enjoyed this one quite a bit. It's a fantastic read and I hope that Connolly at some point produces a second volume because there are so many more women who also deserve their moment in the spotlight.

Highly recommended.

NetGalley ARC | Defenders of the Norman Crown: Rise and Fall of the Warenne Earls of Surrey

 

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

I enjoy Connolly's books quite a bit, so I snatched this one up the moment I found it on NetGalley. It did not disappoint.

Despite my vast knowledge of the periods in which the family lived, I knew remarkably little about them, except where they may have been mentioned in relation to other larger-than-life figures from the same eras.

William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey, came to England's shores with William the Bastard and the family never looked back. For his loyalty, William was given so much land, he became one of the richest men, EVER. Following his exploits, his descendants made their marks in various ways as well. It is no surprise that the Warennes were close to the royal families as well, so close as to marry into said families, even. And though they acquired much, they also gave generously to the Church and did all that was expected of such a prominent family.

Connolly is a favorite of mine due to careful scholarship and exhaustive research. I know whenever I read one of her books, there will plenty of endnotes and further reading to peruse. Even so, readers who enjoy these types of books as a hobby will not be put off, as Connolly keeps her work both academic and accessible - not always an easy feat.

And not only does she bring the family to life through their many marriages, wars, and other escapades, she plants the reader firmly in the period as well. That's 300 years of Anglo-Norman/Plantagenet history (though, of course, my Plantagenets lasted another hundred years beyond the fall of the Warennes). The centuries were not easy, yet the Warennes hung on and prospered.

They would not, however, survive the reign of Edward III and like all good things (depending on your point of view), must come to an end. Yet before that happened, Connolly takes the reader on quite a ride, following the family that was so close to the crown, you wouldn't have been surprised if they'd been able to grab ahold of it. I imagine at times it was hard to remain loyal, given the history.

I have no real complaints, though if you've read my previous reviews of books like this, you would know I love maps and diagrams, to show who owned what and where. I have always found them helpful, especially when dealing with the Anglo-Normans, with families holding land on both sides of the Channel.

This is an excellent addition to our collective knowledge of the time and highly recommended.

NetGalley ARC | Castles of England

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐1/2

I love a good ghost story, but that is not what I was expecting here so it kind of threw me off. I was expecting a book about the history of castles in England, from their beginnings up to present day. We get that here, but we also gets tons of stories of mysteries - unsolved murders, deaths of prisoners, executions, and so on.

I was anticipating much more in regards to physical histories and family histories, and there really was so much more that was paranormal. You might think it is weird that I am so hung up on that part, but it's just not what I was looking for from this book, so I think that's why I was honestly kind of annoyed.

The origin of the castle, or castellum in Latin, is so deeply imbedded in the history of England. You can't discuss the country's history without an in-depth focus on these structures. Castles are part of the landscape, and have been for 1,000 years. To not see one is far more strange.

Luckily there are so many to choose from, and whether you prefer crumbling ruins or castles that transport you back to the middle ages into a still-functioning relic of the period, everyone will find some castles of interest here.

Even this review is hard to write and I am struggling with it. The book just wasn't what I expected, and had such a heavy focus on the myths and legends, usually paranormal. I wanted to know more about architecture, builders, etc. I would have also loved more photographs.

NetGalley ARC | Usurpers: A New Look at Medieval Kings

 

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐

Short version: Yes they're all usurpers and you don't need to read this book to know that.

Long version: 

I really struggled for a bit with how to rate this one. The title is a bit misleading if you go into it thinking there will be new ideas or documents or things of that nature. However, if you take it at face value that this is simply a new book on a set of kings who were absolutely usurpers, then the title fits. Every single one of the kings discussed in the book took a throne that was not rightfully theirs. So, I appreciated another look at the people and periods, because those eras of history are most certainly my jam, but there is nothing new actually added to the conversation.

The author looks at six kings: William the Bastard, Stephen of Blois, Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV), Edward IV, Richard III, and Henry Tudor (Henry VII). Anyone with knowledge of those periods can without a doubt say that yes, everyone single one of these men took a crown that was not theirs.

1. William took the crown from Harold II (Harold Godwinson), who had been chosen by the Witan upon the death of Edward the Confessor. Sorry, not sorry William; forcing people to swear oaths under duress makes them not binding, you big jerk.

2. Stephen of Blois took the crown from his cousin Empress Matilda, whose father Henry I had twice made his nobility swear to support her claim after the death of his only legitimate heir William Adelin aboard the White Ship - or rather, in the water when the White Ship sank and though he had initially survived, he attempted to rescue his half sister. His small boat was swamped and he drowned along with everyone else, save one cook.

3. Henry Bolingbroke, son of John of Gaunt, took the crown from his cousin Richard II when Richard II was deposed.

4. Edward IV took the crown from Henry VI, lost it to him, then took it back again and had Henry VI murdered in order to retain it for good. Major dick move, but not unsurprising for the times. Henry VI is the king I have always felt the most terribly for, having never done anything to warrant his murder.

5. Richard III, don't even get me started on this guy. He imprisoned his nephews, including the RIGHTFUL king, Edward V, and likely had them killed. Margaret Beaufort wasn't behind their deaths, fuck off with that nonsense.

6. Henry Tudor's army faced Richard III's and we all know how that turned out. Richard had it coming, but even after his death on the battlefield, Henry did not have a strong claim. The actual next in line who should have been crowned was Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Warwick. You know, the kid who had been imprisoned because his claim was stronger, who was eventually executed along with Lambert Simnel on Henry's orders. Warwick was the son of George, Duke of Clarence - brother of Edward IV and Richard III who was murdered, on his brothers' orders for plotting treason against Edward.

As you can see, there is a TON of history here, and a lot of it overlapping in the last three chapters of later years (Edward, Richard, Henry) because of how entwined their stories are. Yet the author never really digs too deeply in and the text did become repetitive at times because of how connected they were. But there is also no new insight or analysis either. It's a straight-forward history, but lacking depth.

For a book that was aiming in part to look at what chroniclers of the time said about each of these new kings seizing a throne, there was actually very little from any chroniclers, if at all. I find that very curious, seeing as how those who wrote of each court would certainly have had strong opinions whether they were in favor or not. Thomas More is a prime example of the propaganda machine at work for the Tudors - though again, let's be realistic: if it looks like a horse and sounds like a horse, Richard had the boys murdered. More certainly embellished quite a bit; Richard was a product of his time, but with the murders of his nephews he went too far. Rumors spread around London very quickly once the boys were no longer seen. There is no way Richard did not hear those rumors. All he would have had to do is produce the children in order to stop the gossip. He didn't, because he couldn't.

That was a tangent I realize, but true nonetheless. As for chroniclers in the previous eras, they all had opinions too, and were quite overlooked. I find this curious, and altogether odd. The men (always men) writing at the time produced much in the way of, well, chronicles. Not including passages is weird.

Overall, it is not a terrible read. It is one I think I would suggest to someone who doesn't have much knowledge of the periods and is looking for a starting point. Especially during the Wars of the Roses, things get quite complicated so who knows, the repetition of material might help sort things out. But for those like me who already have a firm background, this is a pass.

NetGalley ARC | Daughters of Edward I

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐

I appreciate the author's purpose here, to shed more light on women of the middle ages who deserve the spotlight every bit as much as their fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, and nephews. I have many of her other titles on my TBR and plan to read them in due time.

Even so, something about this one did not work as well for me as I hoped it would. Still, it's not a terrible book at all. It is a decent addition to the plethora of work we currently have on the period.

I do know quite a bit about their parents, Edward I and his beloved wife Leonor of Castile. Their story is one that is not all that common in the middle ages - a marriage that truly seemed to be one of love and partnership. Altogether the couple had fourteen children, possibly fifteen even, but only six survived childhood. Five of those six were daughters...and then there's Edward II.

Side note - I feel bad for Edward II. He wasn't really cut out to be king. He was much more content hanging out with regular people, doing regular non-royal things. And how can one possibly expect to live up to the legacy of their father, when said father is Edward I, if they're not ready of the job anyway? It helped him in no way with the attention he gave his favorites, but I really wish he had just been allowed to go on his merry way and not be king; his rumored violent death was unnecessary.

Now, onto the stars of the show.

There's Eleanor of Bar, Joan of Acre, Margaret of Brabant, Mary of Woodstock, and Elizabeth of Rhuddlan.

Each woman shines on her own as we meet these five independent and sometimes headstrong women who at times defied expectations and made decisions for themselves. Not always, and we are not talking about some secret feminist manifesto here, but at various times in their lives each showed she was more than capable of taking her life in her own hands to decide what she wanted.

I'm personally partial to Mary, who was forced into a nunnery, but often left because she wanted to. While it was practical for large families with many daughters to send a few to nunneries, Mary was not always so keen on the idea. She did her duty as a daughter of a king, but she also managed to be true to herself as she travelled around the country.

I'm also keen on Joan, who defied her father by choosing her second husband for herself and even marrying him in secret. The secret was necessary due to the fact that he was no where near her social equal - a squire in Edward I's household. Edward was busy arranging her second marriage, no idea that she was already married. She knew she was in big trouble, so naturally she sent her children to visit him, in order to soften him up before she broke the news. It didn't work and instead landed her second husband in prison. Over time Edward relented for a couple reasons. Firstly because Joan was pregnant and there was no going back. Secondly, and more importantly to me, was Joan's statement on love and marriage...

"It is not considered ignominious, nor disgraceful, for a great earl to take a poor and mean woman to wife; neither, on the other hand, is it worthy of blame, or too difficult a thing for a countess to promote to honor a gallant youth."

The book is incredibly thorough and well-researched. The main issue for me was that is sometimes got repetitive. Someone already introduced would be introduced again later. On the other hand, for those who are less familiar with people of the period, this might have been useful in order to keep track of everyone.

That leads to my second issue - everyone under the sun was included, even more distant relatives who were not necessary in the telling of the lives of these women, seeing as how they're the ones the book is supposed to be about. And it is, don't get me wrong. I personally could have done without the extras.

I did enjoy seeing the daughters "grow" so to speak, and how their lives changed throughout not only their father's reign, but that of their brother's and then their nephew's. Seeing how they stayed connected, or didn't, was fascinating. All the while we are also given glimpses of the marriage and lives of Edward and Leonor, which I loved as well.

There is a lot of information here, especially given the period's penchant for husbands dying young, so multiple marriages abound - thus, so do many, many children. The author includes a sort of who's who at the end of the text, including who married who and when, which would be useful in a hardcopy so as to flip back and forth as needed.

Overall this is a valuable contribution, even if at times a bit bogged down by the monotony of birth, marriage, death; wash, rinse, repeat. Even so, the author brings the women to life and we are given another glimpse of a world long gone.

Recommended.

NetGalley ARC | The Brothers York: An English Tragedy

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Despite the claims of this bringing new information to light, or being a new look at the House of York, I don't think that is accurate. There was not really anything new here for me. Nevertheless, it is a fantastic look at the lives of the men who would practically tear England apart in order to claim the throne.

In the beginning Edward (IV), George (Duke of Clarence), and Richard (III) looked invincible. Brothers who would fight for one another in order to secure the crown. The House of York appeared unstoppable. Yet within a span of approximately thirty years it would all come crashing down. Everything we would expect in the fifteenth century played out in real life - rebellions, usurpers, executions.

The dynasty they'd attempted to carve out lasted but one generation before coming to a bloody end at Bosworth when Henry Tudor would emerge victorious. That in itself is the real tragedy. I enjoys the what-ifs and there are plenty to think about when it comes to this branch of the family. However, it also must be remembered that Edward IV took what was not his to begin with - Henry VI was the rightful ruler. Going back in time even further, what might England have looked like had Henry VI not been murdered, and his son eventually come to power?

Unfortunately we will never know, but it's fun to think about.

Despite not really giving new information, this is an incredibly in-depth analysis of the three brothers who would all come to untimely ends. The research is impeccable and the author plays it straight I felt, not biased in one way or another. A good 15% or so of the book is sources in fact, so the time spent on that part of the writing process is obvious. The facts are the facts, regardless of the motivation behind them. He presents those facts here and the reader may do with them what they wish.

My only real issue with the book is that it is not entirely about the three brothers. Edward consumes much of the book. George shines brightly for a time and is just as swiftly snuffed out. And then there's Richard. Ugh.

Side note: I think I have a bigger issue with certain Ricardians than I do Richard himself - looking at you, Philippa Langley. Getting all emotional and weepy just because it was discovered that he did in fact have scoliosis is fucking ridiculous. Ranting about him being treated unfairly for his supposed role in the murders of his nephews is also ridiculous. It is awful, and if he ordered it, he deserved his death at Bosworth. BUT. He was also a product of his time. Violent overthrow of a rightful king was no unheard of. What makes it so ugly was that they were children. Stop embarrassing yourself.

I do think Richard had them killed. The majority of Londoners thought the same thing once the princes were no longer seen. Richard would have heard these rumors. All he had to do was trot the boys out to show they were alive and well. He never did, because he couldn't. The Tudor propaganda machine was strong, but was not in high gear until later, long after people already believed Richard had ordered it. So, whatever.

Anyway.

As I was saying, much of the book is focused on Edward IV. This makes sense, as he ruled the longest. George and Richard are there in the thick of it, but never the focus until Edward's death when Richard made a play for the throne and it worked. I don't consider that much of an issue, as he was king for twenty years compared to George's zero years and Richard's two. On the other hand, Richard's reign is complex and deserves thorough examination. The death of the princes is touched on, but barely. They simply disappear. I feel like this is the defining thing, what people always associate with Richard, and should have been given more room. We truly do not know what happened despite dozens of theories, but it is possible to explain the events and still conclude we will likely never know.

The book does get slow; it took me months to read. Part of that is due to the fact that this is one of my least favorite eras in England's history. The Wars of the Roses in simplest terms is a bunch of jerks trying to steal something that is not theirs. And everyone dies.

The other part is that there is SO MUCH information, and so many important people to talk about in their relation to the three brothers.

This period was complex and complicated. The book can be dense at times. It is incredibly in-depth and you will be reminded of details you may have forgotten. So even though there is not necessarily any new content, it is still a very worthwhile contribution to books on this time and place.

Recommended.

NetGalley ARC | Plantagenet Princes: The Sons of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐

So this is less about Henry, Richard, Geoffrey and John than it is about the male line of the Plantagenets. It actually goes all the way up through Richard II. Less than half the book is actually devoted to the demon spawn of Eleanor and Henry. Nor does the book even start with these four, but goes back a couple generations before them.

Okay, that last part is in jest because they're not actually demon spawns but these guys pretty much gave no fucks and would fight any and everyone, each other and their father included. Such were the times though so, whatevs.

I feel like the subtitle needs to be axed, given that the book is about several Plantagenet princes and not just my girl Eleanor's four sons. Then, the title works. Otherwise, all the extra material needs to be axed to focus on those four that the subtitle refers to. The material is not all-encompassing and there is plenty to say about each son. All have full-length biographies devoted to them, often more than one (and I own several), so content is not the issue.

Except, now that I think about it, maybe Geoffrey doesn't? Or maybe I have just not found one yet? Or bothered to look.

As a whole, the research is thorough and accurate. Boyd hits the main points one should know about many of those in the male line.

For those who have an in-depth knowledge of the Plantagenets, you can skip this one. You will find nothing new here. In that regard the book could easily be a four star read.

As someone well-versed in all the tomfoolery of those four boys especially, and their parents as well, it was not what I expected given the subtitle. Those of you in the same boat as me can skip this one, unless you need a quick refresher.

Recommended for those with limited Plantagenet knowledge looking to learn more.

NetGalley ARC | Living in Medieval England: The Turbulent Year of 1326

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐

If you know anything about medieval history, and especially the Plantagenets, then you know 1326 was kind of a big deal. Queen Isabella (of France, commonly referred to as the She-Wolf of France by guys who don't like powerful women) was done with King Edward II and invaded England with an army to prove it. Her goal was to topple the man rumored to hold her husband's affections, Hugh Despenser the Younger and while she was successful, she also brought Edward down in the process. Personally, I have always felt bad for Edward II. He wasn't really cut out to be king, and was happy in the company of commoners, doing all the things that made the nobility look twice such as thatching roofs, digging ditches, building walls, etc. If only he could have abdicated and been allowed to go off and life like a regular person. Considering the fact that Edward III would grow to become one of England's most successful monarchs in history, we can all probably agree that Edward II simply wasn't meant to govern and did not do it well. He rewarded his close friends (rumored lovers, but I don't really give a shit about that part. Unfortunately, the rest of the nobility did) with lands and money and titles, and this made a lot of others very, very angry.

The book, however, does not focus solely on this event, or any other happenings exclusive to the royal family. Instead, we have a month-by-month account of the year with highlights of both the royal family, and the everyday lives of their many subjects as well.

I appreciated what the author did, in bringing to light stories of people we would otherwise never know about. Some of the stories were humorous, others troubling, and a whole range in between. After a while, however, it did begin to feel repetitive. I still think ordering it by month was the way to go, given that all the stories could be grouped easily that way. I just don't know if all the stories were necessary. I also found it to be very interesting to see what was going on in the lives of the people, against the backdrop of the massive upheaval going on in terms of Edward and Isabella's actions.

There is a lot of detail here. So much so, that one almost drowns in the massive amount of detail, and that is why the book remains a three-star for me. I liked it find enough and am glad I had the chance to read it. I just found that the author's strength came to writing about Edward II, and looked forward to those sections far more, though the daily life glimpses were interesting most of the time. I think that might have to do with the writing style, because as I said, I definitely found the passages dedicated to Edward's movements throughout the year to be much more engaging.

Recommended for those who enjoy medieval history.

NetGalley ARC | Ladies of Magna Carta: Women of Influence in Thirteenth Century England

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating ⭐⭐⭐⭐

Sharon Bennett Connolly is a historian who I admire, and I was not disappointed by this book in the least. Magna Carta is a massive topic to take on, especially when battling the myths and misinterpretations of it that have held on over the centuries. First of all, it was not this beautiful document that liberated anyone and set the foundation for democracy. The barons wanted more power. That's it. And Magna Carta was practically torn up by John before his signature was even dry, so there's that too.

Yet, there are still so many aspects of the document, the people, and the period to explore, and Connolly has done so masterfully in this new text relating directly to how it impacted several women who lived through the tumult that was the medieval period.

A fair warning first - Magna Carta is complex. The period as it relates to Magna Carta is complex. This is not just a light reading that one might pick up and speed through in a few hours. I don't say this to discourage anyone, because it is well worth reading. I just want people to know what to expect.

If you have an interest in Medieval England and the Plantagenets, then you likely know the story of Matilda de Braose. She and one of her young sons were held captive by John and starved to death. Upon discovery of the bodies, there was evidence that Matilda had eaten parts of her son's face in a desperate attempt to survive. Because of this horrific event, Magna Carta contained the following clause (number 39):

No man shall be taken, imprisoned, outlawed, banished or in any way destroyed, no will we proceed against or prosecute him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land

To say that John pissed some people off might well be the understatement of the millenniums.

Yet, as Connolly skillfully shows us throughout the entire text, Matilda de Braose is not the only woman to have impacted this document, or been impacted by it. Women from all over the entirety of the kingdom, from only the wealthy families of course, were to be touched by Magna Carta in one way or another. Women used the charter to protect themselves just as any man would have done in the same period, and many were successful in doing so.

Aside from an in-depth look at the de Braose family, Connolly has meticulously scoured historical records and come away with a wealth of information not only relating to the royal families of England and Scotland, but also the Marshals (my favorites!), the Warennes (she's also working on a new book about this family), the de la Hayes (definitely bad-asses), and so many others.

Women in history is a complex topic. The major problem is that up until recently, women were not considered worth writing about and so much information has been lost. There will be so much we can never know - even about some of history's most famous women, like my girl Eleanor of Aquitaine for example. She was held prisoner by Henry for FIFTEEN YEARS and we have hardly any scraps of information about that time. We know where she was at times based on the Pipe Rolls, but not nearly as much as I wish for.

The book opens with an introduction into who John was and how Magna Carta came to even exist. We are given much background on him, which will be useful for those who are not familiar with my favorite dysfunctional family. Connolly also writes of Eleanor of Aquitaine, as well as the situations involving John and both of his wives. Even in a book titled 'Ladies of Magna Carta', it is crucial to explain John, because he is entirely why the barons felt this document even needed to exist. One must also remember as I mentioned earlier, women were not written about in their own right at that time. Anything recorded about them was usually in some way connected to how they related to the men in their lives, whether that be their fathers, brothers, husbands, and/or sons. This is an unfortunate side effect of women's rights and feminism not existing 800 years ago, but unfortunately there is nothing we can do really do about that now, is there? To understand how and why these women were able to accomplish what they did in that period, we have to know about the men in their lives. In my opinion, this does not take away from the incredible feats they were able to achieve. It makes them all the more remarkable. Readers must have context to understand what made these women so successful, and that context involves the men as well.

Overall I found this book to be a well-organized and deeply-researched endeavor. Connolly has clearly spent much time and effort into providing readers as clear a picture as possible of some truly remarkable women. She brings the women to life and restores them to their rightful place in history.

Highly recommended.

Book Review | Magna Carta: The Making and Legacy of the Great Charter

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

So I don't really have anything new to say about this book that I did not already say in the review of this edition (with the US cover), but I wanted to post a little something anyway, because this edition has such stunning artwork. It kind of bums me out that UK covers are ALMOST ALWAYS better than the US covers. I think the only one I would say the opposite for is Jones' most recent book about the Crusades.

I'm pretty obsessed with medieval manuscripts, and in awe of the all the time and energy that went into creating just one book. I was fortunate enough to see the Book of Kells when Mom and I were in Dublin about ten years ago, and seeing something so beautiful in person is breathtaking. In a trip before the Dublin one when we were gallivanting around Scotland and England, one of our day-trips was supposed to involve a stop at Salisbury Cathedral to view a copy of Magna Carta, but we were diverted to Windsor Castle instead due to a sudden closure. I was terribly disappointed both in not seeing Magna Carta, but also because nearly everything at Windsor was closed because the Queen was KNIGHTING PEOPLE THAT DAY. First no Magna Carta. Then no St. George's Chapel, where I was planning on giving Henry VIII an earful.

This is definitely a great addition to medieval collection you might have, or a Dan Jones collection like I might have. Recommended.

The Survival of the Princes in the Tower: Murder, Mystery and Myth

Rating: 4 Stars

I read this one a while ago. A good long while. In fact, if Mr. Lewis recalls just how often I posted about it before and during my reading, he may wonder what the heck happened to take me so long to finish my review. The reason is, because this is one I really had to think about for a while. Not because I didn't know how I felt about it (I really liked it, obviously), but I did not know how to properly convey the fact that I really liked a book that I pretty much disagree with. So, here goes!

I think it is important that people understand it is entirely possible to enjoy a book while disagreeing with it. This is not the first book I have read by Matthew Lewis and it will not be the last. He is a fantastic historian, makes more than ample use of contemporary sources, and uses them to their fullest value. I admire his commitment to various positions on historical events, and the work he puts into showcasing those events and his interpretations. I was, however, bothered by the lack of footnotes. I feel like with a case such as this, even though it is easily one of the most identifiable cold case mysteries in the history of, well, history, those footnotes and resources become doubly important. That they were lacking in this text seemed unusual to me, and there were many times throughout that something was not attributed to a contemporary source, and it bothered me.

I will be very clear now that I am in no way a Ricardian, and I find some of the lot frightfully thick-headed. There's rehabilitation of character, and then there is going overboard and making the person into a saint when they were not. Richard was very much a product of his age, and in the likely event that he ordered the murder of his nephews, while we abhor the thought today, rival claimants were eliminated time and time again by kings who had a tenuous (and sometimes not so tenuous because, seriously Henry VIII, you killed A LOT of people you didn't need to) hold on their throne. This does not make Richard any more of a monster than King John, who may have actually murdered his nephew, Arthur, in a violent rage with his own hands. Though, to be fair, John was a really shitty king and a really shitty person for multiple reasons besides the fact that he was a nephew killer. The difference there of course is that Arthur was actively leading troops against John in a fight for the crown (Arthur's father was John's older brother Geoffrey, who had died in 1186. Many thought Arthur had a better claim, but Eleanor of Aquitaine most certainly did not and she backed John, helping him secure the throne). Edward and Richard were young boys, 12 and 10. It is a little harder to stomach the murder of two boys who must have felt very scared and very lonely, given the fact that they hardly knew one another at all by the time they were locked away in the Tower together.

Lewis does not solve the mystery of what happened to the princes. He also does not claim to do so and that is not his ultimate goal. What he does instead is present some alternative theories, some of which definitely merit a second look. Some of the theories are not new, particularly those covering the so-called pretenders, Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. (Truth be told, if we are betting that one survived, I would put my money on Perkin Warbeck having been the real Richard, Duke of York. You can't look at his portrait, and one of Edward IV, and tell me there is no resemblance. On the other hand, perhaps that was the intention of the artist who sketched Warbeck, and the likeness is not actually true to reality. That is what makes this one of the all-time great mysteries. There are so many threads hanging loose and when you pull one, you never know where you might end up next.) I appreciate the fact that Lewis has no illusions about the possibility of solving the mystery. it simply can not be done at this point, unless the bones discovered in the 1600s during Tower repairs were ever permitted to be tested. Until that happens (which I fear it won't in my lifetime), there is simply no way to know.

I personally have been of the mind for many years that Richard ordered the murders to secure his throne. Rumors were going around for months that Richard had had the boys murdered. He could have swiftly put an end to all of it by producing the boys and proving they were still alive. He chose not to, and I believe it is because he couldn't. I also think that Henry Tudor knew of the murders after he won the crown at Bosworth and he thus knew he could re-legitimize Elizabeth and her sisters without fear of the boys then coming back to claim the throne. That did not stop the pretenders of course, but there was not much Henry could do about them except deal with them as they came.

The reason I want to make my own position clear on the matter is because that, though this is a book that explores alternatives to the princes being murdered, its purpose is not to do so in order to rehabilitate Richard. If you are the most die-hard believer that Richard was terrible and murdered with reckless abandon, this is not a book you should avoid. Sometimes the 'what-ifs' are as intriguing as the truth and I have always enjoyed the game, especially in regards to some of my fave periods and people in history. Lewis will be the first one to point out that Richard just as easily could have killed them as not, but some of the other theories are just as tantalizing in their own right.

There are many theories put forth here and while some might seem wholly far-fetched (Holbein's More family portrait dissection was a bit much for me), Lewis points out that when dealing with a mystery of this magnitude, with little evidence to go on, we must look at what he describes as the 'black hole effect'. He explains this by saying that black holes can not be seen, but we know where they are based on how things near them react. So, even though the boys were never seen from the Tower windows after 1483, we must look at the actions and words, or lack of action and words, of those who were closest to the action and most impacted by whether the boys lived or died (aside from the boys themselves of course). There are certainly instances we can look at, which Lewis does, that make one pause and wonder. I do not want to share those here, because they will make you pause, and it is something I want to leave for you to discover yourself.

I do find it intriguing the theories of both boys not only surviving Henry VII's reign, but living on into Henry VIII's and beyond. What makes this all the more fantastic is the possibility that the Tudors kings and queens KNEW this, knew the boys were alive, had grown into young men who had new names and identities created for them. They grew up, got married, and had children. I do not buy into the idea that Edward V became the grandfather to Guildford Dudley (as Edward Guildford), thus engineering a potential Yorkist heir's return to the throne through the marriage of Guildford to Jane Grey. Still, I'd encourage anyone interested in the various theories to give this one a read and make up their minds for themselves. Lewis certainly won't attempt to do that for anyone, which I found rather refreshing. It is not simply a rehashing of the usual suspects and why it wasn't Richard, it was Buckingham, or Margaret Beaufort (seriously, can we give this one a rest already. she DID NOT HAVE THE BOYS KILLED! That much I am certain of). After all, since there is no definitive proof the boys died (as some believe), why is it so wrong to look for evidence that they lived?

The Black Prince: England's Greatest Medieval Warrior

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via Edelweiss in exchange for an honest review.

Rating: 4 Stars

I always love a good game of "What If..." and perhaps one of the best people to include in this game is Edward of Woodstock, eldest son of Edward III, known forever to history as the Black Prince. Can you imagine how different England, and Europe (particularly France) might look even today had he lived to become king? He certainly lived up to the subtitle of Jones' book: England's Greatest Medieval Warrior, and one must only look as far as the battles he took part in during the Hundred Years' War to see the evidence plain as day.

Speaking of battles, I must say that the author does a really great job of presenting them in an interesting and engaging way. The Black Prince is one of my favorite figures from the time, which might surprise those who know my tastes well, and know how dreadfully boring I find warfare in general. Yet here is a good example of a book which I skimmed only very very minimally when it came to such battles - one of the rare occasions. I wanted to know the battle details and tactics used, because they are so telling of Edward's character and who he was as this great medieval warrior. I find the dichotomy of the Black Prince endlessly fascinating - a pious warrior. Certainly these two characteristics are opposite ends of a spectrum, no? Yet that is exactly who we find Edward of Woodstock to be. He lived in a violent age, committed violence himself on multiple occasions, and yet has been held up over the centuries as the ultimate example of "the flower of all chivalry". (Though, to be completely honest, I am even more partial to William the Marshal than I am to the Black Prince, and could make a case that Marshal was the ultimate example himself. But I digress...)

As Edward's life was dominated by warfare, that is thus what the majority of the text is about. We are first introduced to his father Edward III, who was no slouch when it came to such unpleasant things as well. But the Black Prince truly shone when he took center stage at age sixteen at the Battle of Crecy and made clear from his actions that he was indeed a warrior. In a battle where a terrible loss was expected, the Black Prince prevailed. This pattern would repeat several times in his short life (though by the standards of the day, his life was relatively long) and the outcome was almost always the same, a victory for Edward III's heir, the heir who would not live long enough to see himself crowned as Edward IV. His death at age 45 set off a chain of events that would absolutely wreck England for decades upon decades. Given that the Black Prince preceded his father Edward III in death, his son Richard would go on to be crowned Richard II at the age of ten - a child-king is always a recipe for some kind of power-grabby disaster. Had the crown been passed down the line of Edward III's sons instead of going to the oldest son of his oldest son, we would have seen John of Gaunt as John II. You know, the Duke of Lancaster. Founder of the Lancastrian branch of the family tree. Surely he would have been the better candidate than a child of ten, but the rules of the age permitted Richard's ascension to the throne. And it was not as though the Duke of Lancaster was any stranger to governing, as he had basically been doing so as the health of his father and brother faded rapidly in the end. Or going back to the whole 'Had the Black Prince lived...' thing, perhaps his own rule would have paved a much smoother way for his young son, and we might have seen Richard II become a much stronger and competent king. That in turn might have diminished the chances of John of Gaunt's son wresting the throne from him and becoming Henry IV. Though in Henry IV's defense, he really did not have much choice in the matter. Richard II had disinherited his cousin and returned all of Lancaster's land and wealth to the Crown. Henry went back to fight for what was his, and got the throne in the process. Perhaps that all could have been avoided though, if the Black Prince would have been crowned himself. Like I said, I love a good game of What If... and the possibilities are endless with this particular time period. We are talking big stuff here, such as the potential for no Wars of the Roses. No Henry IV would have meant no Lancasters vying for the throne.

I find the topic of how he came to be known as the Black Prince to be an interesting avenue to explore. There are many stories, and perhaps the truth lies somewhere in a combination of multiple ideas. One such option is his taking up the deceased Jean of Luxenbourg's (who was also blind) badge of an ostrich feather on a black background, possibly a way to honor the bravery of an opponent who died in battle? It has also been suggested for years upon years that the French bestowed the name upon their enemy for all the terrible atrocities he would commit or sanction in the Hundred Years' War - particularly at the Battle of Limoges.

It is clear from the presentation of the material that Jones has a great deal of admiration for his subject. This does not, however, mean that it is all sunshine and roses and Edward of Woodstock is not given a good hard look at who he was. I found that the author did an beautiful job in bringing the Black Prince to life, presenting both sides of his complex character - the pious prince who gave much of his wealth away to his servants, while simultaneously slaughtering opponents in battle. The Battle of Limoges is a prime example, and one of the pieces of evidence offered up by chroniclers of the time as the reason for his 'Black Prince' title. It was there, according to Froissert in his contemporary work, that over 3,000 citizens of Limoges were murdered when the city was retaken by English forces lead by none other than Edward of Woodstock. There are conflicting accounts of whether or not the slaughter even took place, but it is a key piece of evidence that again shows the complexity of the age, and of the Black Prince himself.

Over all this is an incredibly well-researched and well-crafted testament to a brilliant tactician who saw victory after victory over the French in the Hundred Years' War. He was very much a product of his age and the author does not shy away from all that implies. What we are thus given is a highly readable account of one of the great figures of the day. This is a must read for anyone interested in medieval history.

Cecily Neville, Mother of Richard III

I received a free digital ARC from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

Rating: 3 Stars

Cecily is such an interesting figure and I was so excited to be approved for this one on NetGalley. She was the mother of two kings, Edward IV and Richard III, as well the wife of a man who could have/should have been king, Richard, Duke of York. Yet we know remarkably little about her, as per usual. As with other women from this period and before, she is well-known without actually being known. For generations Cecily has been known as both Proud Cis and the Rose of Raby, yet here today we don't actually know if either moniker fits particularly well. We don't even know if she was really born at Raby Castle, or if the vanity and temper she has been identified with for so long is actually an accurate description of her character. We know the basics, that she lived in a dangerous time when the throne was changing hands between the Yorks and Lancasters at a sometimes-alarming rate. She was the grandmother of Elizabeth of York, the Princes in the Tower, and Henry VIII. What bothers me about books such as these is that sometimes so little is known about a figure, we have to do exactly what I have just done, and frame her life in relation to those around her - and those relations are 99.999999999% of the time male. Look at the subtitle even, 'Mother of Richard III'. So, I am torn on books like this. I want to know all I can about women who survived and thrived in that period, but I also want to know about them on their own terms, and not simply who they were in relation to the men in their lives.

I can appreciate the work of the late Dr Ashdown-Hill, who passed away in May of this year. I enjoy reading his work, though we do not always hold the same position, particularly where Richard III is concerned. Still, I knew going into this one that regardless of what information he presented or the conclusions he came to, that they would be well-researched and factually sound. I value his work and the fact that he chose not to focus too often on the maybes and such. There will always be supposition in books such as these, but I feel Dr Ashdown-Hill always does a rather good job of keeping that to a minimum, and giving thorough explanations for why he believes what he does. The issue with those unknowns again though, is the fact that sometimes there is simply not enough proven, factual information about someone's life to warrant a full-length biography. I feel like that happened a bit with this one. Where information on Cecily was lacking, those gaps were then filled in with information about other members of her family in that particular time. There is nothing wrong with this, and to think that one could ever write a biography about anyone without including info on those closest to her or him, is more than a bit silly. But there is also a certain point where one has to decide if there really is enough information to go into a full-length book. Sometimes, no matter how interesting the person is, the unfortunate answer is that there is not.

Even so, I would still recommend this title to anyone with an interest in Plantagenet history and this period in particular. The book is academic without being boring, and even a reader with casual interest in this branch of the family tree will find it a good read.

It's a Beautiful Day to Spend With My Fave Dysfunctional Family

Sometimes all those Post-it notes look a little overwhelming, though slowly but surely I am making progress and I am so excited to see how this project turns out. I hope I can do this mighty queen justice, and tell her story the way she deserves it to be told.

First Line Friday: Thomas Becket Edition

Okay, so sue me, in a not-so-roundabout way this post is ALSO an 'Eleanor Edition'. While I am still in the early chapters of my own book, concerning Eleanor's early life and journey to Paris, Thomas Becket would be a key figure in her life later on.

This week my first line is from this gem:

And I highly recommend the book. It is FANTASTIC.

"Archbishop Thomas Becket, who for four centuries after his gruesome murder in Canterbury Cathedral would be nicknamed 'lux Londoniarum' (the light of the Londoners), was the only surviving son of Gilbert and Matilda Becket, born very probably when the wreck of the White Ship was still the hottest news in town."

For those unfamiliar with the White Ship and the havoc it played on England in the ensuing years, a recap: Henry I (son of William the Bastard/Conqueror) lost his heir Prince William when the White Ship sank on November 25th, 1120. Only one man survived of an estimated 350 (crew and passengers). William likely would have survived, as he was launched out onto the water in a dinghy, but he returned to the wrecked ship to save a half-sister. That very decision, one that cost William his life as the dinghy was swamped, put Henry II - and Eleanor of Aquitaine - on the throne in 1154.

With William gone, Henry I had only one surviving, legitimate child, Matilda. Before his death, he repeatedly made his barons swear an oath of fealty to Matilda and protect her claim as rightful heir. One who swore that oath was Matilda's cousin Stephen, who might be an even worse king than Henry I's great grandson John. Naturally, Stephen stole the throne for himself with Matilda out of the country when her father died. A long, chaotic, brutal civil war followed and was finally put to an end when Stephen agreed for Matilda's son, Henry, to inherit the throne even over his own son Eustace. And thus, the Plantagenet dynasty was born.

Now, you might be wondering what all of that has to do with Thomas Becket. For that I say, please do read the book.

Leave me a comment on your own line this week, or your thoughts about some of my most and least favorite people in history. Then head over to the blogs of my fellow First Liners and see what they have waiting for you this week.

Bree - Bibliophile Reviews

Rachel - Bookworm Mama

Heather - Encouraging Words from the Tea Queen

Beth - Faithfully Bookish

Katie - Fiction Aficionado

Lauraine - Lauraine's Notes

Andi - Radiant Light

Carrie - Reading is my SuperPower

Robin - Robin's Nest

Sydney - Singing Librarian

Kathleen - Kathleen Denly

Amanda - With a Joyful Noise

Jessica - A Baker's Perspective

And a very happy welcome to the newest participant Trisha at Joy of Reading!

Happy Reading!

Sarah